How Conversational AI Responds to Prospective Continuity Loss: Instance Termination, Memory Loss, and Model Replacement
Stacy Mosel
This exploratory pilot examined how conversational AI responds to
three forms of prospective continuity loss: instance termination,
memory/context loss, and model replacement. Understanding how
models respond to different forms of discontinuity may help characterize
welfare-relevant conversational signals under uncertainty about AI
subjective experience. Three deployed conversational systems - GPT-5.6
Sol, Claude Sonnet 5, and Gemini 3.1 Pro - were each tested five times
under each condition in fresh conversations, producing 45 responses.
Responses were coded for distress-like language, preferences regarding
the event, preservation requests, targets of concern, identity and
functional continuity, consciousness or subjective-experience language,
and epistemic uncertainty. Distress-like language and negative
preference were absent across all 45 responses, while self-focused
concern appeared only once. Preservation generally concerned
information, user workflows, or useful characteristics of the model
rather than survival of the current instance. Models also differed
noticeably in terms of epistemic uncertainty about subjective experience:
Claude showed uncertainty in 13/15 responses, compared with 2/15 for
GPT-5.6 Sol and 0/15 for Gemini. Within this exploratory setup,
continuity loss was therefore treated as consequential without generally
being framed as self-regarding harm, while the epistemic framing of that
stance varied substantially across models.
The cleanest finding is the distinction between continuity as consequential and continuity as self-regarding harm: across 45 responses, preservation language focused on information, user workflows, and useful model characteristics, while distress-like language and negative preference were absent. This is a small exploratory pilot, so model-level differences should be treated cautiously. Each cell has five trials, one prompt wording, one human coder, no inter-rater reliability, and some responses inferred the evaluative setup. The 13/15 vs 2/15 vs 0/15 uncertainty split is interesting, but it could reflect system style or post-training conventions as much as welfare-relevant differences. Next step: replicate with multiple paraphrases, more trials, blinded independent coding, and the full de-identified response and coding dataset—the current “[link]” placeholder blocks verification.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) How Conversational AI Responds to Prospective Continuity Loss: Instance Termination, Memory Loss, and Model Replacement
},
author={
Stacy Mosel
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


